Circumcision and STDs: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
==Contemporary view based on medical science== | ==Contemporary view based on medical science== | ||
Evidence-based medicine does not support the subjective opinion of the early circumcision-promoters.<ref name="vanhowe2013">{{REFjournal | Evidence-based medicine does not support the subjective opinion of the early [[circumcision]]-promoters.<ref name="vanhowe2013">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Van Howe | |last=Van Howe | ||
|first=Robert S. | |first=Robert S. | ||
| Line 237: | Line 237: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Circumcision advocates had falsely claimed that the sub-preputial space was a filthy [[cesspool]] of infection that was eliminated by circumcision. However, Parkash et al. (1982) showed that the sub-preputial moisture actually contained lytic material with antiseptic qualities that protected against disease.<ref>{{REFjournal | [[Circumcision]] advocates had falsely claimed that the sub-preputial space was a filthy [[cesspool]] of [[infection]] that was eliminated by [[circumcision]]. However, Parkash et al. (1982) showed that the sub-preputial moisture actually contained lytic material with antiseptic qualities that protected against disease.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Parkash | |last=Parkash | ||
|init=S | |init=S | ||
| Line 261: | Line 261: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Smith et al. (1987) found evidence that the foreskin protected against acquisition of non-gonococcal urethritis, possibly "''by affecting the physiologic milieu of the glans penis, by association with post-coital hygiene behavior, or by local immune defense mechanisms acting against the agent''."<ref name="smith1987">{{REFjournal | Smith et al. (1987) found evidence that the [[foreskin]] protected against acquisition of non-gonococcal urethritis, possibly "''by affecting the physiologic milieu of the [[glans penis]], by association with post-coital hygiene behavior, or by local immune defense mechanisms acting against the agent''."<ref name="smith1987">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Smith | |last=Smith | ||
|first=Gregory L. | |first=Gregory L. | ||
| Line 291: | Line 291: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Cook et al. (1993) reported their findings that circumcised men were more likely to have genital warts than intact men. The authors concluded, "''the presence of the foreskin may confer nonspecific protection of the proximal penis from acquisition of HPV infection''."<ref name="cook1993A>{{REFjournal | Cook et al. (1993) reported their findings that [[circumcised]] men were more likely to have genital warts than [[intact]] men. The authors concluded, "''the presence of the [[foreskin]] may confer nonspecific protection of the proximal [[penis]] from acquisition of HPV infection''."<ref name="cook1993A>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Cook | |last=Cook | ||
|init=LS | |init=LS | ||
| Line 318: | Line 318: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Cook et al. (1994) compared the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in intact males with circumcised males who attend the STD clinic at the [https://www.uwmedicine.org/locations/harborview-medical-center Harborview Medical Center] in Seattle, Washington, USA. They reported that genitally intact men were more likely than circumcised men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts.<ref name="cook1994">{{REFjournal | Cook et al. (1994) compared the incidence of sexually transmitted disease in [[intact]] males with [[circumcised]] males who attend the STD clinic at the [https://www.uwmedicine.org/locations/harborview-medical-center Harborview Medical Center] in Seattle, Washington, USA. They reported that genitally [[intact]] men were more likely than [[circumcised]] men to have syphilis and gonorrhea and were less likely to have visible warts.<ref name="cook1994">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Cook | |last=Cook | ||
|first=Linda S. | |first=Linda S. | ||
| Line 348: | Line 348: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
Bassett et al. (1994) investigated the factors associated with HSV-2 infection in heterosexual men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, Australia. They reported that, "''we found no evidence of the presence of an intact foreskin being a risk factor for HSV-2 infection''."<ref name="bassett1994">{{REFjournal | Bassett et al. (1994) investigated the factors associated with HSV-2 infection in heterosexual men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, Australia. They reported that, "''we found no evidence of the presence of an [[intact]] [[foreskin]] being a risk factor for HSV-2 infection''."<ref name="bassett1994">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Bassett | |last=Bassett | ||
|first=Ingrid | |first=Ingrid | ||
| Line 396: | Line 396: | ||
Donovan et al. (1994) also surveyed men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, {{AUSC|NSW}}, Australia. They reported: | Donovan et al. (1994) also surveyed men at a sexual disease clinic in Sydney, {{AUSC|NSW}}, Australia. They reported: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
''In this clinic-based prospectively collected survey we found no association between male circumcision status and STDs that are common in our population. Perhaps importantly, our study group was relatively racially homogeneous, lack of circumcision was not a marker of lower socioeconomic status (using the index of education level; Table 2), and we controlled for a major parameter of sexual behaviour (lifetime number of sexual partners)''.<ref name="donovan1994">{{REFjournal | ''In this clinic-based prospectively collected survey we found no association between male [[circumcision]] status and STDs that are common in our population. Perhaps importantly, our study group was relatively racially homogeneous, lack of [[circumcision]] was not a marker of lower socioeconomic status (using the index of education level; Table 2), and we controlled for a major parameter of sexual behaviour (lifetime number of sexual partners)''.<ref name="donovan1994">{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Donovan | |last=Donovan | ||
|first=Basil | |first=Basil | ||
| Line 426: | Line 426: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
Laumann et al. (1997) used data from the ''National Health and Social Life Survey'' (NHSLS) (1992) to report on the effects of male circumcision in the United States. With regard to STDs, Laumann et al. reported: | Laumann et al. (1997) used data from the ''National Health and Social Life Survey'' (NHSLS) (1992) to report on the effects of male [[circumcision]] in the [[United States]]. With regard to STDs, Laumann et al. reported: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
''With respect to STDs, we found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision and a slight tendency in the opposite direction. Indeed, the absence of a foreskin was significantly associated with contraction of bacterial STDs among men who have had many partners in their lifetimes. These results suggest a reexamination of the prevailing wisdom regarding the prophylactic effect of circumcision. While circumcision may have an impact that was not picked up by the NHSLS data, it seems unlikely to justify the claims made by those who base their support for widespread circumcision on it''.<ref name="laumann1997">{{REFjournal | ''With respect to STDs, we found no evidence of a prophylactic role for circumcision and a slight tendency in the opposite direction. Indeed, the absence of a foreskin was significantly associated with contraction of bacterial STDs among men who have had many partners in their lifetimes. These results suggest a reexamination of the prevailing wisdom regarding the prophylactic effect of circumcision. While circumcision may have an impact that was not picked up by the NHSLS data, it seems unlikely to justify the claims made by those who base their support for widespread circumcision on it''.<ref name="laumann1997">{{REFjournal | ||